The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-01-22

connected with the passage we are con- |
sidering, are these words, "the sacrifices |
which they offered" They offered. Who
offered these sacrifices? Tracing the |
words back we find the anteceient of |
they TO be the very men appointed to die
This is what said in my article, Settled
the question" 1t does settle it. There
need not be another word said. In this
verse, too, we learn that the occasion on
which these men offered sacrifices, was the
annual atonement. 1t occurred "year by
year, continually" or one year after an
other.
There never was question more effect
ually settled. l wish 1 could claim the
honor of it. But this is due to tile late
Rev. E. Manford, the great and indefat-
igable Western missionary. The only
obstacle ia the way of an unqualified ac.
ceptance of this Interpretation, is the word
once, as l once thought; for the high
priests did not die this typical death, once
but once year. am glad was not
more positive about the ellipsis for
now see that such an ellipsis cannot be
sustained. 1t would spoil the authors
| reasoning. He knew what ne was saying
better than thought. The word means
once-no more and no less this and
nothing else. The ambiguity arises from
an attempt to combine the plural and the
| singular in the same sentence.
My present understanding of the pas
sage is, that the plural is used (the men
appointedD for the reason, that one high
priest as much as another represented
Christ; and the singular (once to die,
and after this Judgment is employed.
because the authors mode Of argument
required but one instance of this kind Of
death, by one high priest. It will be OBJ
served, that while the men is plural !;
"once to die and after THIS Judgment"
has three words in the singular show
ing that only one death and one judg.
ment are required by the nature of the
argument. Let us see how "once year"
would have answered the authors pur-
pose. "As it is appointed unto the men"
(the high priests "once year to die SO
Christ was once offered" This is defect
I've. If Christ was offered so as the high
priests, this offering was not once, but
once year. We therefore see the necee-
sity OF taking this word once in it's strict
sense.
The words $50 Christ was once offered
not only show that the death of the high
priests was an offering, and therefore typ
ical but that one such, by one priest,
was all the argument required. 1t will
be noticed that these men are spoken OF
in two ways, as being offered, and as Of
fering. The meaning is the same as
when Christ is said to be offered, and as
Offering himself Hence it is said of the
high priest, that he entered the most holy
place by blood not his own while Christ
entered heaven, the most holy place in the
universe, by his own blood. The blood
OF the sacrifices was accepted for that of
the priests F.; but Christ's own blood must
be shed for the redemption of mankind.
My critic, if understand him rightly,
says that, il "they offered" in the next
verse TO the passage we are considering,
refers to the high priests, it cannot refer
to the men appointed to die. Answer.
The high priests are not mentioned but
the men appointed are so described, as to
show that they were the high priests
These men are they who offered the sac
ritices year by year, continually; and no
others did this but the high pr tests
What then binders the reference to them
as the high prisets The pronoun they
and the noun men. are some distance
apart but the construction of the pas
sage did not allow nearer proximity
dent of they. The division of the pas
sage by chapter ten, Is not to be regarded,
as it was not there till long after the
passage was written; and we all know
that the division into chapters has little
or no regard to the meaning of the au-
thor.
|
my article, used the expression, "the
men once appointed to die" which makes
quite difference in the sense. My critic
does me the justice to presume that this
location Of the word once was accidental.
Had he said this unqualifiedly, should
have thought better of his charity. I lean
assure him, and all others, that it was not
possible for me to do this on purpose.
When I cannot expound the Scriptures
without a sacrifice of principle, l will give
up the business. was so unconscious
of having used the word improperly, that
it took me some time to see what my
brother twas driving at" Still it was a
very proper thing to point out my mis-
take, and still more proper to suppose
even problematically that did it by &C
! cident.
| Before relinquishing this word once, 1
would remark, that DIR. Miller needs
some qualification of the word, quite as
much as do. He took the position in
his article in the Quarterly, that the
death which men were appointed to die,
is moral death. Was this death to be suf-
fered but once? What disposition then
shall we make of the second death, or of
those who were twice dead, plucked up
by the roots Besides, there is the death
- kba bod., N, xran oa ,,o<rol daotb Aro